Opinion
M–1791
10-05-2018
In the MATTER OF Eric P. GONCHAR, a suspended attorney: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, v. Eric P. Gonchar, Respondent.
Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York, (Orlando Reyes, of counsel), for petitioner. Chris McDonough, Esq. for respondent.
Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York, (Orlando Reyes, of counsel), for petitioner.
Chris McDonough, Esq. for respondent.
Rolando T. Acosta, Presiding Justice, David Friedman, Dianne T. Renwick, Sallie Manzanet–Daniels, Richard T. Andrias, Justices.
PER CURIAMRespondent Eric P. Gonchar was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on August 7, 1989. At all times relevant herein, respondent has maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Department.
By order entered April 29, 2014, this Court suspended respondent from the practice of law for nine months, effective May 29, 2014, and until further order of this Court, for maintaining a side practice of law for 11 years without his firm's knowledge in contravention of his terms of employment and failing to include the income derived therefrom on his state and federal income tax returns ( 118 A.D.3d 1, 983 N.Y.S.2d 804 [1st Dept. 2014] ).
In October 2015, we referred respondent's application for reinstatement for a hearing. By report dated April 26, 2016, the Hearing Panel recommended that respondent be denied reinstatement because he improperly continued to represent three clients, whom he did not inform of his suspension, in real estate transactions initiated prior to his suspension, and continued to hold himself out as eligible to practice law in New York on the internet. By order entered October 13, 2016, we denied respondent's application for reinstatement and directed that he could not reapply for at least two years.
Now, the Attorney Grievance Committee seeks an order, pursuant to Judiciary Law §§ 90(2) and 486, immediately disbarring respondent, without further proceedings, for violating this Court's April 29, 2014 suspension order by willfully engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and continuing to hold himself out as a licensed New York attorney. Respondent opposes the motion.
The April 29, 2014 order directed respondent to entirely "refrain from the practice of law in any form, either as principal or agent, clerk or employee of another," and prohibited him from giving "an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto," effective May 29, 2014.
The evidence on the motion establishes that respondent continued to hold himself out as a lawyer and that he gave substantive legal advice on real estate matters to attorneys at the law firm where he worked and a nonattorney employee in flagrant violation of our suspension order and Judiciary Law §§ 478 and 486, warranting his disbarment (see Matter of Thomas, 162 A.D.3d 1, 76 N.Y.S.3d 159 [1st Dept. 2018] ; Matter of Rosabianca, 131 A.D.3d 215, 15 N.Y.S.3d 309 [1st Dept. 2015] ).
Accordingly, the Committee's motion should be granted, and respondent disbarred from the practice of law, and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.
Ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of disbarring respondent pursuant to Judiciary Law §§ 90(2) and 486, and striking his name from the roll of attorneys in the state of New York, effective the date hereof.
All concur.